4 ms·

That's a distiniction without a difference. Ads you like are now public information campaigns, ads you don't aren't. "The government is about to pass a bill to

by harry8 6y ago

That's a distiniction without a difference. Ads you like are now public information campaigns, ads you don't aren't. "The government is about to pass a bill to lock up your reproductive organs. Join the campaing to free the genetalia!" Public information or ad? Context depedent, sure, and also dependent on your views on whether the bill is actually teriffic, terrible or anywhere between the extremes. Still an ad to make the public aware of the information. For covid info, advertising slots are still bought. They are filled with content tha has been paid to be created to fit the format and effectively convey the message, including on an emotional level. The covid information ads still decorate media being consumed for reasons other than seeing the associated ads. "All $whatever..." rarely works out.

adrianN 6y ago
No, the distinction is about as clear as distinctions go that you make in a HN comment as opposed to a scholarly article on sociology. If someone tries to influence you to make a profit for themselves (e.g. by getting you to spend money on their products) then it's an ad. If your government tries to tell you how to protect yourself or others from a threat then that's not an ad.
- harry8 6y ago
  And what then about the opposition's paid information disbursement when the government policy is wanting? An ad or not? Then of course if, according to your definition there are no ads there is no place for the mandadated government paid slots which aren't ads to run. If you're a non-profit, like say a church, selling any of the things churches sell, then that's an ad for that stuff that's not an ad so that's then ok. If the profit you make is by being elected and then being a crook, then that's not an ad. If you're just doing brand awareness and recognition and promoting the fact that your company does charitable good works that's also not an ad. In fact the majority of ads I've seen don't have an explicit "you should buy this" line in them at all. The construction is obvious and basically nobody misses it but it's not actually explicitly there. Certainly Chanel's stink ads, which are the epitome of everything I hate, don't. The grey areas here overlap so badly and based on opinion alone that it really is a distinction without a difference. Any rule you set up I'll show you as many exceptions that show it's futile until boredom takes over. You slice it any way you like. Do they take money for services? Ok so UNICEF information is ads but political advertisements are not. The Coca-Cola company endorses being nice to puppies and supporting your local shelter. There can't be a clear distinction. There can't be sensible policy that fairly discriminates between good and bad paid 30 second television slots or between good and bad magazine spreads, between good and bad PR influenced news articles or anything of that nature. The Covid information adverts that probably saved lives. They could easily have had the opposite information content and cost lives. Without verifying it, i'd be sure that somewhere in the world they were and activists were advocating a better response with paid ads which were funded by industry groups.

by harry8 6y ago

adrianN 6y ago

No, the distinction is about as clear as distinctions go that you make in a HN comment as opposed to a scholarly article on sociology. If someone tries to influence you to make a profit for themselves (e.g. by getting you to spend money on their products) then it's an ad. If your government tries to tell you how to protect yourself or others from a threat then that's not an ad.

harry8 6y ago
And what then about the opposition's paid information disbursement when the government policy is wanting? An ad or not? Then of course if, according to your definition there are no ads there is no place for the mandadated government paid slots which aren't ads to run. If you're a non-profit, like say a church, selling any of the things churches sell, then that's an ad for that stuff that's not an ad so that's then ok. If the profit you make is by being elected and then being a crook, then that's not an ad. If you're just doing brand awareness and recognition and promoting the fact that your company does charitable good works that's also not an ad. In fact the majority of ads I've seen don't have an explicit "you should buy this" line in them at all. The construction is obvious and basically nobody misses it but it's not actually explicitly there. Certainly Chanel's stink ads, which are the epitome of everything I hate, don't. The grey areas here overlap so badly and based on opinion alone that it really is a distinction without a difference. Any rule you set up I'll show you as many exceptions that show it's futile until boredom takes over. You slice it any way you like. Do they take money for services? Ok so UNICEF information is ads but political advertisements are not. The Coca-Cola company endorses being nice to puppies and supporting your local shelter. There can't be a clear distinction. There can't be sensible policy that fairly discriminates between good and bad paid 30 second television slots or between good and bad magazine spreads, between good and bad PR influenced news articles or anything of that nature. The Covid information adverts that probably saved lives. They could easily have had the opposite information content and cost lives. Without verifying it, i'd be sure that somewhere in the world they were and activists were advocating a better response with paid ads which were funded by industry groups.